This week's edition of the New Statesman carries a front-page article on Venezuela by Alice O'Keeffe under the title "Chavez: from hero to tyrant" . Hands Off Venezuela's Press Officer Charley Allan complains that this is just "standard Washington propaganda".

Venezuelan President
Hugo ChÃ¡vez has certainly politicised the population, but it's unfair
to accuse him of polarising it. A "cold" - and sometimes not so cold -
civil war has been waged since long before he was elected.

Alice
O'Keeffe ("ChÃ¡vez: From hero to tyrant", 12 July 2007) reports on the
current 21st century class war entirely from the point of view of the
rich right-wing opposition - and it's a totally deluded point of view.

RCTV
has not been "shut down," although many government supporters have been
calling for that since its participation in the bloody failed coup of
2002. Its public-broadcast license has quite simply not been renewed in
a perfectly legal and constitutional manner. The channel is still
transmitting on cable and satellite.

ChÃ¡vez
is hardly "power-crazed" - in fact, he has done more than any other
Venezuelan president to devolve political and economic power to the
people. He's survived the country's first ever recall referendum,
renationalised major utilities and regenerated huge sectors of the
country.

The
rich have always been heavily armed and paranoid about the poor rising
up. ChÃ¡vez has started a peaceful and democratic process to bring about
more equality in Venezuela, a country with enough natural resources for
everyone. The problem is that the rich just don't want to share.

At
a time when the Venezuelan elite are seeking to exploit the issue of
RCTV to destabilise the country and perhaps incite a violent civil war
along the lines of Chile or Nicaragua, it is sad to see a progressive
publication repeating the standard Washington propaganda. Your readers
deserve better.

Charley Allan, press officer Hands Off Venezuela, Britain

Hands Off Venezuela member Dan Morley also replied in the New Statesman on-line edition:

I am a regular reader of New Statesman because it offers an
alternative news source to that of the mainstream media. However,
unfortunately on this occasion the journal has completely succumbed to
the agenda of those who control the mainsteam media: capitalists.

First of all, as 'Picoroco' correctly stated above, this article
is itself guilty of misinformation. Chavez did not close RCTV, he did
not renew its licence, a completely legitimate act of the state against
a company that had blatantly violated the terms of its licence. The hue
and cry over the death of the 'freedom of expression' does not stand up
against the fact that the vitriolically anti-Chavez opposition still
has its main media outlets untouched, and is using them to full effect.
It is interesting to note that at the same time as this hysteria, the
Pakistani government, which is certainly not democratic but is a friend
of Bush et al, has viciously clamped down on all dissent and freedom of
speech in the press, using violence freely, but not a word has been
expressed on this matter in our 'free press'.

The whole of this article misses the fundamental point - there
is not a civil war in Venezuela, but an open class war. Until this is
understood, we will limit ourselves to pointless complaining about the
'unpleasantness' of public debate, which is in reality an effect of the
class war between the poor and disposessed, who now finally have some
political power, and the rich, the oligarchy, who fearing the loss of
their privilege use every excuse to attack the government - the RCTV
case being the latest excuse. In relation to this, the author would do
well to refrane from eulogising about the students aiming for
'reconciliation' (something unimaginable in a class war - the
viciousness of the 2002 coup is testimony to this), considering the
recent evidence showing that their protests were orchestrated by the
very same imperialist media that feels threatened (manuscripts of their
speeches were found to have been written by certain corporations, who
were obviously 'sponsering' the protests). These students may be
sincere, but those who play them to their advantage are not, and are
very dangerous.

The article is littered with emotive and unreliable anecdotes
('With a power-crazed ChÃ¡vez at the helm' - it remains to be shown how
he is power hungry, it is merely stated emotively), and where it does
refer to facts these have been shown to be false or misleading.
Furthermore, the quotes featured, which appear to be exclusively
anti-Chavez, ironic in a nation that recently gave 63% support to him,
show a deep misunderstanding of Chavez's role - he is not manufacturing
the situation, but is responding to it, and reflects the mood of the
masses. That his support is real, that his position is based on a mass
movement, is shown by the fact that Chavez was only saved from a coup
by a spontaneous movement of literally millions. Thus such comments
'Chavez has not learned you cannot create solidarity by decree' are
ludicrous - Chavez's entire power is based on a very real solidarity
that existed prior to his presidency - from 1989 to be precise, a year
when the then government not only viciously suppressed dissent, causing
the deaths of unknown 1000s, but also liberally employed press
cencorship in relation to its actions, something that Chavez has never
done, nor is it ever reported in such articles as this.

The reality is that the fact that you are 'forced to be on one
side or another' is not some manufactured dictate of Chavez, but a
consequence of the class struggle, something Chavez exists in relation
to but did not create, and the unpleasant aspects of which should be
blamed not on Chavez but on the reactionaries.

This article has shown it is entirely victim to the agenda of
said reactionaries, and proves that 'The freedom of the press belongs
to those who control the press'.